Anne was hired by Peter to sell a condominium in San Francisco. The asking price for
the modest two-bedroom unit was $2,300,000. Peter told Anne he would sell the home
for as low as $2,100,000, but that she should try to obtain the highest possible price,
without disclosing the fact that he was willing to accept $2,100,000. A good friend of
Anne’s was in the market for a two-bedroom condominium in San Francisco. In fact,
this friend had come to Anne to help her find a place and negotiate for it. Anne’s friend
said that she could afford to spend no more than $2,000,000. When Peter hired Anne to
sell his condominium, Anne told her friend about it and the asking price. Anne told her
friend, “Don’t even bother. He won’t go below $2,100,000; that’s his bottom price.”
Anne then proposed to her friend that they “pool their resources,” with Anne fronting
some money through her friend, but not having Anne’s name on the contract as a
purchaser. Before they could finalize the details, Anne’s friend received a raise and
decided to buy the condominium. Anne negotiated a price of $2,100,000 on Peter’s
behalf. Peter later found out that Anne had told her friend about his bottom price, and
about the plan for Anne to help buy the house. What claims, if any, does Peter have?
One of the cornerstones of the American legal system is the concept of trial by jury. The
fact remains however that following the jury’s verdict, the judge has a right to
completely reverse that verdict. How would a judge do this, and under what
circumstances should a judge do so?